From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 25 09:36:16 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA5F16A4CE for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:36:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (rwcrmhc12.comcast.net [216.148.227.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A5743D3F for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:36:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from taxman@freedombi.com) Received: from pcp08792602pcs.vnburn01.mi.comcast.net ([68.41.190.132]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2004042516361501400i3ajle>; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:36:16 +0000 From: Tim McMillen To: David Fleck In-Reply-To: <20040413224607.O5427@grond.sourballs.org> References: <20040413224607.O5427@grond.sourballs.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1082896542.28050.4.camel@taxman> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:35:47 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: mirroring: cvsup vs. rsync X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:36:16 -0000 On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 03:57, David Fleck wrote: > I'm trying to set up a mirror of a CVS repository at a remote site. The > repository has 1000's of fairly small files, and is about 75MB in total > size. > > This seemed like an obvious job for CVSup, so I got a recent version > (16.1h) of the sources, built and installed on 2 Red Hat machines, one > local and one remote, set up the server directories and files, and wrote a > supfile for the client. It seems to work ok. > > The thing that surprises me is that I also tried mirroring the same > repository with rsync (using the -az options), and rsync is *much* faster, > so far the speed increases for rsync are on the order of 5X. > This makes me wonder if I'm using CVSup right. Well I'm not sure if you are, I don't know the bowels of cvsup, but I do know rsync is a much more efficient protocol. 5x seems a little excessive, but not that surprising I guess. to the point that I'm not sure why rsync is not the preferred way of updating ports and src trees. Tim -- Wikipeda, a free and open content encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org